phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | repetition priming of motor programs— “Repetition priming is characterized by increased performance as a behavior is repeated.” | |
| claim-type | mechanism— “In summary, taken together these results and previous work support the idea that repetition priming in the feeding network is mediated by the release of modulatory neurotransmitters from inputs to the CPG.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Conventional intracellular and extracellular recording techniques were used.” | |
| mechanism | Priming requires modulatory peptides released by extrinsic CPG inputs; stimulating a core CPG neuron does not release them, so no priming accumulates— “Rather, it is likely that the appropriate modulators are simply not released when only B63 is stimulated.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | FCAP/CP-2 released from CBI-2 raise the excitability of the ingestive interneuron B40, which is then recruited into later programs and imposes an ingestive B8 firing pattern— “The recruitment of B40 is likely to result from a peptide (i.e., FCAP/CP-2)-mediated excitability increase.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Priming is stored as persistent modulator-induced changes in the pattern-generating interneurons B20 and B40 inside the feeding network rather than presynaptically in the input terminals— “However, taken together our data strongly suggest that effects of repetition priming are at least partially mediated by effects of modulators on pattern generating interneurons within the feeding network (i.e., B20 and B40).” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | Carry-over between behaviours occurs only when the interneuron modified by the first behaviour is also part of the circuit recruited by the second, which is why switch costs are asymmetric— “This will happen if neurons that are modified during the first type of activity are part of the circuitry activated during the second type.” | mechanisms[3] |
| builds-on | the chemical coding model of repetition priming developed from the radula opener circuitry (Friedman et al. 2015; Friedman and Weiss 2010)— “Our results are therefore consistent with the chemical coding model developed as a result of previous experiments conducted on the radula opener circuitry ( Friedman et al. 2015 ; Friedman and Weiss 2010 ).” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | previous demonstrations that unprimed CBI-2- and EN-induced buccal motor programs have intermediate rather than ingestive or egestive characteristics (Dacks et al. 2012; Friedman et al. 2009; Proekt et al. 2004)— “We confirmed these results, demonstrating that 80% of the unprimed BMPs induced by CBI-2 were classified as intermediate, as were 75% of the unprimed BMPs induced by EN stimulation ( Fig. 2 ).” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | repetition priming, in an invertebrate preparation - INCREASED PERFORMANCE AS A BEHAVIOUR IS REPEATED, and nothing else. No memory, no awareness, no subject. Set beside Hoewe2020, where the same word requires that a person be unable to trace an influence, this is the widest extension of the term in the corpus— “repetition priming is characterized by increased performance as a behavior is repeated. Although repetition priming is observed in many species and contexts (see, e.g., Epuru et al. 1995 ; Schacter and Buckner 1998 ; Sharma et al. 2003 ; Sinnamon et al. 2000 ), there have been relatively few studies that have characterized underlying… | senses[0] |
| sense | how priming MANIFESTS here - not faster or stronger but better ARTICULATED: the first cycle of a program is neither ingestive nor egestive, and repetition makes it become one. The measured quantity is the definiteness of a pattern, not the size of a response— “if an input is stimulated in a quiescent preparation, the first cycle of the motor program is poorly defined (i.e., it is neither ingestive nor egestive). However, as input activation is repeated, phase relationships change such that program articulation develops, e.g., if an ingestive input is repeatedly stimulated motor activity becomes… | senses[1] |
| sense | `prime` in the authors' own scare quotes - used for the derived case, where a program triggered from inside the CPG shows priming only because extrinsic inputs were stimulated first. They mark the word when the thing does not meet their own paradigm case— “This suggests that it should be possible to “prime” motor programs triggered from within the CPG by first stimulating extrinsic modulatory inputs” | senses[2] |
| sense | the negative result read carefully - the authors decline the strong reading of their own null: nothing PRECLUDES priming of B63-induced programs, the modulators are simply not released when only B63 is stimulated. An absence of an effect is read as an absence of a cause, not as an impossibility— “Our data therefore indicate that nothing “precludes” the priming of B63-induced motor programs. Rather, it is likely that the appropriate modulators are simply not released when only B63 is stimulated” | senses[3] |
| control | six to ten control measurements taken first, then B40 current injections interleaved with the CBI-2 stimulation trains — held — rules out drift in the preparation over the course of a long intracellular recording - the baseline is established first and the two conditions then alternate rather than running in sequence— “After 6–10 control measurements, B40 current injections were interleaved with three 30-s trains of CBI-2 stimulation (15 ms, 10 Hz; current adjusted to yield 1 spike/pulse).” | controls[0] |
| effect direction | B63 —causes→ repetition priming — no-change— “When motor programs are repeatedly generated by stimulating B63 with a short ISI, repetition priming does not occur”— “repetition priming does not occur” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | B63 —causes→ repetition priming — THE LOAD-BEARING NEGATIVE. Repetition alone does not prime; the priming belongs to the extrinsic inputs. The paper predicted this before testing it - 'if priming is…' - which is what makes the null a result rather than a gap.— “When motor programs are repeatedly generated by stimulating B63 with a short ISI, repetition priming does not occur” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | B63 —causes→ repetition priming — 0.1— “When motor programs are repeatedly generated by stimulating B63 with a short ISI, repetition priming does not occur” | concept_edges[0] |
| effect direction | CBI-2 —causes→ repetition priming — increases— “The ingestive input, the neuron CBI-2, contains two peptides: cerebral peptide 2 (CP-2) and feeding circuit activating peptide (FCAP) ( Koh et al. 2003 ; Koh and Weiss 2005 ; Morgan et al. 2000 ; Sweedler et al. 2002 ), which play an important role in the induction of repetition priming”— “an important role in the induction of repetition priming” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | CBI-2 —causes→ repetition priming — And the KIND of priming follows the input, not the repetition - which is the chemical coding model's whole content.— “The ingestive input, the neuron CBI-2, contains two peptides: cerebral peptide 2 (CP-2) and feeding circuit activating peptide (FCAP) ( Koh et al. 2003 ; Koh and Weiss 2005 ; Morgan et al. 2000 ; Sweedler et al. 2002 ), which play an important role in the induction of repetition priming” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | CBI-2 —causes→ repetition priming — 0.9— “The ingestive input, the neuron CBI-2, contains two peptides: cerebral peptide 2 (CP-2) and feeding circuit activating peptide (FCAP) ( Koh et al. 2003 ; Koh and Weiss 2005 ; Morgan et al. 2000 ; Sweedler et al. 2002 ), which play an important role in the induction of repetition priming” | concept_edges[1] |
| effect direction | CBI-2 —causes→ B40 — increases— “we demonstrate that either CBI-2 stimulation or exogenous application of these peptides increases the excitability of B40”— “increases the excitability of B40” | concept_edges[2] |
| note | CBI-2 —causes→ B40 — THE LOCALISATION, and the reason it is convincing: the same effect is produced by stimulating the input OR by applying its peptides directly, so the route is chemical rather than synaptic.— “we demonstrate that either CBI-2 stimulation or exogenous application of these peptides increases the excitability of B40” | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | CBI-2 —causes→ B40 — 0.9— “we demonstrate that either CBI-2 stimulation or exogenous application of these peptides increases the excitability of B40” | concept_edges[2] |
| audit | repetition priming —causes→ negative biasing — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but negative biasing is 'observed when' CBI-2 follows repetition priming; causes is loose.— “Negative biasing is observed when motor programs are triggered by stimulating CBI-2 after EN-induced repetition priming. The first cycle of induced activity is egestive” | concept_edges[3] |
| note | repetition priming —causes→ negative biasing — The consequence for task switching, and it follows from persistence: B20 is left more excitable by egestive priming and is active during ingestive programs too, so the modification carries into the next behaviour.— “Negative biasing is observed when motor programs are triggered by stimulating CBI-2 after EN-induced repetition priming. The first cycle of induced activity is egestive” | concept_edges[3] |
| weight | repetition priming —causes→ negative biasing — 0.8— “Negative biasing is observed when motor programs are triggered by stimulating CBI-2 after EN-induced repetition priming. The first cycle of induced… | concept_edges[3] |
| audit | chemical coding —causes→ repetition priming — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the data 'suggest' chemical coding 'plays a role in the context of' repetition priming; hedged. | concept_edges[4] |
| note | chemical coding —causes→ repetition priming — Stated as what the data SUGGEST rather than as established here - the supporting work is cited to Friedman et al. - and weighted for that. The content is that WHICH modulator is released decides which kind of priming occurs, so the identity of the input is the identity of the effect. | concept_edges[4] |
| weight | chemical coding —causes→ repetition priming — 0.85 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[4] |
| audit | B20 —causes→ negative biasing — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the B20 modifications 'are likely to be at least partially responsible'; hedged. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| note | B20 —causes→ negative biasing — Hedged by the authors - 'likely to be at least partially responsible' - and weighted for it. The mechanism is specific even where the claim is cautious: B20 receives input during BOTH program types, so a modification made during egestive priming is still in place when an ingestive program is triggered. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| weight | B20 —causes→ negative biasing — 0.75 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| no type for this | repetition priming as defined here - increased performance as a behaviour is repeated, measured in a dissected Aplysia ganglion, with no reference to memory, awareness or a subject → media priming as defined in Hoewe2020 (in this corpus), which REQUIRES that the person be unable to mentally trace the source of the influence, and is restricted to System 1 — THE SAME WORD AT BOTH ENDS OF ITS POSSIBLE EXTENSION, IN ONE CORPUS. One paper applies 'priming' to a preparation with no subject at all - a buccal ganglion on a dish, where the criterion is that a motor pattern becomes better articulated on repetition. Another makes the ABSENCE OF A SUBJECT'S AWARENESS the defining criterion, and proposes an operational test built entirely on asking the person what they noticed. A definition requiring unawareness and a definition with nobody to be unaware cannot be the same definition, yet neither paper marks the word as belonging to another field. Both are ordinary uses in their own literatures. This is not a disagreement and not an error by either: it is the extension of a term stretched past the point where one definition can cover it, which is the object this project was assembled to document. The schema has no relation type for 'these records use one term at incompatible scopes'; 'renamed-across-fields' is the closest and it is wrong, because the name did not change - only what it can be true of., and for the missing types. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | unhoused_relations[0] |
| limitation | Somatic recordings used to rule out indirect recruitment of the CPG inputs may not reflect activity at those inputs' terminals. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | An additional contribution from modulation of the motor neuron B8 itself is not excluded. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Stimulating the CPG interneuron B63 to trigger feeding programs produced no significant improvement in response articulation. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Repetition priming did occur when programs were induced through the esophageal nerve or CBI-2. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Unprimed programs were mostly intermediate: 80% of those induced by CBI-2 and 75% of those induced by the esophageal nerve. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | CBI-2-induced repetition priming appears to modify properties of the core feeding network postsynaptic to CBI-2. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Repeated esophageal-nerve stimulation also appears to induce priming by modifying properties of the core feeding network. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Bath application of the CBI-2 peptides FCAP and CP-2 partially mimicked CBI-2 stimulation, raising retraction-phase B8 firing to over 250% of baseline. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Bath application of the esophageal-nerve peptide SCPb reproduced the egestive signature, raising protraction-phase B8 firing to over 250% of baseline. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | Ingestive priming increased the excitability of the interneuron B40 and its firing frequency during B63-induced programs. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[7] |
| finding | Egestive priming instead recruited the egestive interneuron B20, whose protraction firing frequency more than doubled after esophageal-nerve stimulation. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[8] |
| finding | The authors suggest this partly accounts for the asymmetry of task switching in the feeding network: negative biasing egestive-to-ingestive, positive biasing ingestive-to-egestive. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[9] |
| quantity | 94% — Share of unprimed buccal motor programs triggered from inside the CPG (B63) that were classified as intermediate Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 1.2 ± 0.4 Hz to 6.1 ± 0.8 Hz — Fivefold increase in B8 retraction-phase firing in B63-triggered programs caused by prior CBI-2 (ingestive) priming Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 1.0 ± 0.2 Hz to 3.1 ± 0.5 Hz — Threefold increase in B8 protraction-phase firing in B63-triggered programs caused by prior esophageal-nerve (egestive) priming, recovering within 15 min Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 9.8 ± 5.7% to 87.5 ± 4.2% — Fraction of the protraction phase during which B40 was active, before versus after CBI-2-induced priming Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 8.7 ± 0.9 to 19.2 ± 2.3 spikes — Spikes evoked in B40 by a fixed 3-s current pulse before and after three trains of CBI-2 stimulation, i.e. the excitability increase Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | r = 0.7665, P < 0.0001, n = 103 BMPs — Correlation between B40 firing and B8 retraction-phase activity pooled across time points and preparations Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | r = 0.8296, P < 0.0001, n = 56 BMPs — Correlation between B20 firing and B8 firing during protraction Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| quantity | 1.0 ± 0.2 Hz vs 1.4 ± 0.2 Hz, P = 0.18 — B8 protraction and retraction firing in unprimed B63-triggered programs, statistically indistinguishable between phases Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[7] |
| variable | exogenous peptide application (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | B8 firing frequency (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | B40 excitability (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| variable | latency to spike initiation (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[4] |
| variable | interstimulus interval (control) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[5] |
| variable | injected current (control) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[6] |
| variable | high-divalent cation solution (control) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[7] |
| definition | repetition priming Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | ingestion Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | egestion Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | protraction Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | chemical coding model Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| definition | negative biasing Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[6] |
| definition | task switching Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[7] |
| concept | repetition priming — not defined in this paper's own words; THE WIDEST DEFINITION OF THE WORD IN THIS CORPUS: increased performance as a behaviour is repeated, with no reference to memory, awareness or a subject. It is measured in a dissected ganglion Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | central pattern generator — not defined in this paper's own words; the circuit that produces the rhythm, and the paper's key structural distinction is between this core and the INPUTS to it - priming turns out to belong to the inputs Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | B63 — not defined in this paper's own words; the neuron INSIDE the core CPG, chosen because it is the element most commonly used to trigger feeding programs - which is what makes its failure to prime informative Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | CBI-2 — not defined in this paper's own words; the ingestive input to the CPG, and a chemical address as much as a wire: it releases two peptides that produce an ingestive pattern Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | B40 — not defined in this paper's own words; the interneuron recruited after ingestive priming, and the locus the effect is traced to - its excitability is what the peptides change Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | B20 — not defined in this paper's own words; the egestive counterpart, and the one that carries the consequence for task switching, because it is active during BOTH program types Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | chemical coding — not defined in this paper's own words; the model the result supports: which modulator is released decides which KIND of priming occurs, so the identity of the input is the identity of the effect Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| concept | task switching — not defined in this paper's own words; the consequence the authors draw, and they keep it in scare quotes throughout: stopping one kind of motor activity and starting another Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[7] |
| concept | negative biasing — not defined in this paper's own words; the already-named phenomenon their locus explains - a first cycle that comes out egestive rather than intermediate because the previous priming left B20 more excitable Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[8] |
| paired t-test t | as written: paired t -tests Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| ANOVA | as written: an appropriate ANOVA Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| repeated-measures ANOVA F | as written: 1-way repeated-measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons P | as written: t -tests with Bonferroni corrections Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| correlation r | as written: a significant correlation between B40 firing and B8 retraction activity Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| standard error of the mean SE | as written: means ± SE Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[5] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824